Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 5874
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1719 OF 2015 Between:
1. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT. LTD Having its branch at Tirupati, Rep.
by its Manager/Foreman, C. Kesavulu Naidu, S/o. Late C. Krishnama Naidu.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. K. NARENDRA KUMAR & 4 OTHERS S/o. K. Ramu, Aged about 35 years, R/o. D.No.18/8/67, 2nd Floor, madhura Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District.
2. R. Jayaprada W/o. K. Raghavendra, Aged about 36 years, Working Senior Medical office, Casualty, SVIMS, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
3. C. Yasoda, W/o. C. Reddeppa, Aged about 55 years, R/o. D.No.18-1-
46/E, Santhi Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
4. N. Mahesh Babu S/o. N. Ramachandraiah, Aged about 34 years, R/o.
D.No.20-3-53/E, Upstairs, Erramitta, Sivajyothi Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRICHARAN TELAPROLU The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ****
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1719 of 2015 Between:
M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited, Having its branch at Tirupati, represented by its Manager/Foreman, C.Kesavulu Naidu, S/o. Late C.Krishama Naidu.
… Petitioner/Decree-holder/Plaintiff Versus
1. K.Narendra Kumar, S/o. K.Ramu, 35 years, R/o.D.No.18/8/67, 2nd Floor, Madhura Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District.
2. R.Jayaprada, W/o. K.Raghavendra, 36 years, W/as.Senior Medical Office, Casualty, SVIMS, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
3. C.Yasoda, W/o. C.Reddeppa, 55 years, R/o.D.No.18-
1-46/E, Santhi Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
4. N.Mahesh Babu, S/o. N.Ramachandraiah, 34 years, R/o.D.No.20-3-53/E, Upstairs, Erramitta, Sivajyothi Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
5. A.Rajasekhar, S/o. A.Vittal Naidu, 34 years, R/o.D.No.16/1/213, Upstairs, Erramitta, Sivajyothi Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
(Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 are not necessary parties in this CRP)
... Respondents/Judgment-debtors/Defendants * * * * *
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 18.04.2023.
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Yes/No _____________________________ B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J * HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI + CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1719 OF 2015 % 18.04.2023 # Between:
M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited, Having its branch at Tirupati, represented by its Manager/Foreman, C.Kesavulu Naidu, S/o. Late C.Krishama Naidu.
… Petitioner/Decree-holder/Plaintiff Versus
1. K.Narendra Kumar, S/o. K.Ramu, 35 years, R/o.D.No.18/8/67, 2nd Floor, Madhura Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District.
2. R.Jayaprada, W/o. K.Raghavendra, 36 years, W/as.Senior Medical Office, Casualty, SVIMS, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
3. C.Yasoda, W/o. C.Reddeppa, 55 years, R/o.D.No.18-
1-46/E, Santhi Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
4. N.Mahesh Babu, S/o. N.Ramachandraiah, 34 years, R/o.D.No.20-3-53/E, Upstairs, Erramitta, Sivajyothi Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
5. A.Rajasekhar, S/o. A.Vittal Naidu, 34 years, R/o.D.No.16/1/213, Upstairs, Erramitta, Sivajyothi Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
(Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 are not necessary parties in this CRP)
... Respondents/Judgment-debtors/Defendants ! Counsel for the Revision -petitioner : Sri P.Durga Prasad ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri T.Sri Charan ^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 : Proforma Parties < Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2013 (6) ALT 798.
2. 2017 (3) ALT (DB) 81 = 2017 (3) ALD 387 = 2017 (2)
HLT 106.
3. Shriram Chits Private Limited vs. Manuri Ravi and others in CRP No.6499 of 2016, dated. 30.08.2016 on the file of High Court of Judicature, for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
4. 2014 (6) ALT (DB) 69 = 2015 (2) ALD 166.
5. 2012 (11)SCC 511. 6. 1969 AIR (SC) 297.
7. 1982 AIR (SC) 1497. 8. 1987 AIR (SC) 1078. 9. 1992 AIR (SC) 1740. 10. 1986 AIR (SC) 868.
11. 2009 9 SCC 478.
12. 2010 AIR (SC) 3413.
This Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1719 of 2015
O R D E R:
Heard Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for revision-
petitioner/decree-holder and Sri T.Sri Charan, learned counsel for respondent No.2/judgment-debtor No.2.
2. The contention of revision-petitioner/decree-holder is that as per the decree passed against the judgment-debtors, all of them are jointly and severally liable for the decree amount but none of them discharged the decree amount, and therefore, execution petition was filed against the respondent No.2/ judgment-debtor No.2 who is working as Senior Medical Officer, SVIMS, Tirupati, for realization of the decree debt, as her liability towards the decree amount is coextensive with that of the other judgment-debtors.
3. The contention of respondent No.2/judgment-debtor No.2 is that the revision-petitioner/decree-holder filed execution petition against respondent No.2/judgment-debtor No.2 alone, by leaving the other judgment-debtors, and therefore it is not just and proper.
4. The learned Trial Court „Dismissed‟ the execution petition filed by the revision-petitioner/decree-holder on 21.11.2014 by considering the judgement in Jaichand T.Gangwal vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited and others1 relied by the respondent No.2/judgment-debtor No.2, observing that if other judgment- debtors are omitted from the array of the parties in the execution petition, the one who is singled out would face hardship and thereby gave a finding that filing of execution petition against judgment-debtor No.2 by leaving out judgment-debtor Nos.1, 3 to
5 will cause hardship to judgment-debtor No.2.
5. In the light of above rival contentions, the point that would arise in the revision-petition is as under: -
“Whether the Trial Court committed any material irregularity in the Order, dated 21.11.2014 passed in E.P.No.71 of 2013 in O.S.No.449 of 2008?”
6. P O I N T: -
There is no dispute about the joint and several liability of all the judgment-debtors in discharging the debt due under the decree as ordered by the Trial Court in O.S.No.449 of 2008. Accordingly, the decree-holder proceeded against the judgment- debtor No.2, who is respondent No.2 herein, seeking to attach her
salary, as she is being one of the guarantors towards the debt due by the principal debtor.
7. Now, it must be seen whether the decree-holder is entitled to proceed against the judgment-debtor No.2 only, leaving the other judgment-debtors, who also suffered a joint and several decree.
8. The learned counsel for revision-petitioner/decree-holder placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Punyamuthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao and another vs. M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited and others2, wherein it was held as under:
“The law is well settled otherwise i.e., that the decree-holder has an option to proceed against either the principal debtor or any of the guarantors or against all of them. There need to be no interpretative pains, to arrive at the conclusion that the liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, as Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act is clearly worded. It says that the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless it is otherwise provided by the contract.”
9. Further, in Shriram Chits Private Limited vs. Manuri Ravi and others3 which is rendered by this Court, at para-No.3 referred the Judgment of this Court‟s Division Bench in Chalapathi Chit Fund Private Limited, Guntur vs. Adusumalli Malleswara Rao and three others (CRP No.2980 of 2009) held as under:
“In the above Division Bench Judgment of this Court, after a review of the entire case law, their Lordships held that where judgment-debtors suffered a joint and several decree, the decree-holder is at liberty to recover the money against any one of the judgment-debtors and further held that the decree-holder has the liberty to file an execution petition against one or the other judgment-debtors.”
10. The lear
